Date of decision: 2025-02-28Decision case number: 5786-2024Decision maker: Erik Nymansson Summary of the decision: On a forensic psychiatric ward with security class 3, staff of Uppsala University Hospital in Region Uppsala routinely ask patients returning from leave or ground privileges to show the contents of their pockets and bags. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman establishes that the procedure...

Aujourd’hui (mercredi 22 avril 2026), le Médiateur fédéral présente son Rapport annuel 2025 à la Chambre des représentants. Pour les médiateurs fédéraux, Jérôme Aass et David Baele, « une administration fiable » constitue le fil conducteur de ce rapport. Les plaintes des citoyens et des entreprises, ainsi que les signalements de lanceurs d’alerte, constituent des signaux qui offrent l’opportunité de renforcer la fiabilité des autorités.  « Les citoyens et les entreprises doivent pouvoir compter sur les autorités. Quiconque introduit une demande, paie des impôts, a besoin d’une allocation, demande un visa, etc., s’attend à de la clarté, de la prévisibilité et un traitement correct et consciencieux dans un délai raisonnable » soulignent les médiateurs.

À nouveau, plus de 10 000 dossiers

 

Le Médiateur fédéral a enregistré 10 461 dossiers en 2025. Il a reçu 6269 plaintes et 4192 demandes d’information. Le nombre de plaintes reçues par le Médiateur fédéral en 2025 a de nouveau augmenté par rapport aux années précédentes et se rapproche une fois encore du niveau atteint lors du pic de 2023. Dans toutes les plaintes pour lesquelles le Médiateur fédéral est intervenu auprès de l’administration en 2025, une solution a été trouvée ou la situation a été clarifiée dans 4 cas sur 5 (81%)

Toutes les plaintes ne portent pas sur des problèmes de l’administration. Il suffit parfois que le Médiateur fédéral, depuis sa position neutre et indépendante, explique de manière compréhensible une réglementation complexe ou une décision correcte de l’administration. 

En 2025, la majorité des plaintes portaient à nouveau sur des dossiers liés à la migration (44 %). Il s’agit principalement de plaintes relatives au traitement des demandes de visa. Ces plaintes sont variées : elles concernent les longs délais d’attente, une information et une communication insuffisantes, un manque de motivation des décisions, ainsi qu’une attention insuffisante à la situation spécifique ou aux droits fondamentaux du citoyen. Le Médiateur fédéral publiera prochainement un rapport sur les problèmes structurels à l’origine du nombre élevé et persistant de plaintes dans les dossiers liés à la migration.

 

Le nombre de demandes d’information continue également d’augmenter. Environ la moitié d’entre elles portent sur des matières fédérales. L’autre moitié concerne des sujets qui ne relèvent pas de la compétence du Médiateur fédéral. Cela montre que les citoyens sont en quête d’une information fiable. Il demande dès lors aux administrations fédérales, d’informer et de communiquer de manière aussi proactive et claire que possible. 

Les attentes légitimes des citoyens 

« Une administration fiable répond aux attentes légitimes des citoyens. Lorsque les orientations prises ou des décisions administratives ont des conséquences importantes sur les droits des citoyens ou leur vie quotidienne, il est essentiel que les administrations tiennent compte des attentes qu’elles ont elles-mêmes fait naître. En 2025, nos dossiers nous ont une nouvelle fois démontré à quel point la confiance peut être rapidement mise à mal lorsque cette fiabilité vacille — et à quel point elle peut se rétablir lorsque l’administration écoute, explique et propose des solutions. » explique le médiateur fédéral, Jérôme Aass.

Voici quelques exemples de dossiers pour lesquels le Médiateur fédéral a engagé un dialogue avec l'administration : 

• Un nombre exceptionnellement élevé de demandes de visa pour regroupement familial en provenance de Gaza a entraîné un allongement des délais de traitement. Afin de résorber le retard, le SPF Affaires étrangères a envoyé un agent visa supplémentaire au consulat. Le Médiateur fédéral a également demandé au consulat de communiquer clairement les délais d’attente prolongés sur son site internet. 
   
• Les citoyens doivent souvent se présenter en personne auprès d’un poste diplomatique ou consulaire pour introduire une demande de visa. Dans certaines circonstances, cela n’est pas évident, particulièrement lorsque le poste est éloigné, parfois situé dans un autre pays et que le déplacement est difficile. Le Médiateur fédéral a formulé une recommandation à l’attention du SPF Affaires étrangères et de l’Office des étrangers afin de permettre l’introduction des demandes de visa à distance.
   
• Une ASBL a reçu une amende TVA au motif qu’elle n’aurait pas introduit sa déclaration de TVA. L’ASBL a contesté cette décision. Il est apparu, après vérification auprès de l’administration de la TVA, que la déclaration avait bien été introduite, mais qu’elle n’avait pas été signée valablement. L’ASBL n’en avait pas été informée et s’est néanmoins vu infliger une amende. Étant donné la bonne foi de l’ASBL, le SPF Finances a, à la suite de l’intervention du Médiateur fédéral, renoncé à l’amende. 
   
• À la suite d’une modification automatique dans la Banque-Carrefour des Entreprises, l’entreprise de Jacques s’est vu attribuer un code erroné. Il pouvait corriger lui-même cette erreur gratuitement par voie numérique ou la faire rectifier par son guichet d’entreprises, moyennant paiement. N’étant pas parvenu à corriger l’erreur lui-même, il a dû payer 186,50 euros à son guichet d’entreprises pour effectuer la correction. Estimant injuste de devoir supporter les frais liés à une erreur de l’administration, il a demandé le remboursement du montant. L’administration a d’abord refusé, avant de procéder au remboursement à la suite de l’intervention du Médiateur fédéral.
   

• Pieter perçoit une pension au taux ménage et son épouse travaille comme accueillante d’enfants. En raison de l’absence de plusieurs enfants, son épouse perçoit pour ces jours une allocation de l’ONEM. Il alors reçoit un courrier du Service des pensions lui demandant de rembourser 1 600 euros, car ce revenu de remplacement de l’ONEM ne peut être cumulé avec une pension au taux ménage. Le Médiateur fédéral et le Médiateur des pensions estiment qu’il devrait être possible pour les citoyens de rembourser volontairement une allocation de l’ONEM. si cela leur permet d'obtenir ou de conserver une pension plus avantageuse. 

  Une administration fiable : répond rapidement et avec précision aux défis sociétaux et aux orientations prises ;  respecte l’état de droit et les droits fondamentaux des citoyens ;  communique clairement et informe activement ;  assure une gestion conscienceuse ;  corrige les erreurs ;  garantit l'accessibilité pour tous lorsqu'elle numérise ses processus ;  se compose de différents services qui collaborent efficacement entre eux ;  améliore les pratiques administratives et la législation, entre autres sur la base des recommandations du Médiateur fédéral/ des ombudsmans belges.

Lanceurs d'alerte : clarifier la notion de « fraude sociale » 

 

 

 

En 2025, le Centre Intégrité du Médiateur fédéral a traité 826 nouveaux dossiers : 766 signalements de lanceurs d’alerte et 60 dossiers de protection. Ces chiffres montrent une légère augmentation (+61 dossiers) du nombre total de dossiers de lanceurs d’alerte par rapport à 2024. Le nombre de signalements provenant du secteur public fédéral reste stable (89 signalements), tandis que les signalements issus du secteur privé continuent d’augmenter (passant de 547 signalements en 2024 à 613 en 2025).

44 % des lanceurs d'alerte dans le secteur privé et 26 % dans le secteur public choisissent de signaler anonymement, probablement dans l’idée que cela offre une meilleure protection. Les signalements anonymes sont toutefois souvent plus difficiles à traiter et sont, dans la plupart des cas, déclarés irrecevables, faute pour le Centre Intégrité de disposer d’éléments suffisants pour étayer le dossier et en assurer le suivi. Afin d’améliorer la communication avec les lanceurs d’alerte anonymes, ceux-ci peuvent, depuis le milieu de l'année 2025, utiliser un nouvel outil de signalement anonyme mis en place par le Médiateur fédéral.  

Une modification de la législation nécessaire

Il y a environ trois ans, la directive européenne sur les lanceurs d’alerte a été transposée en droit belge. Il s’agissait d’une avancée importante pour les lanceurs d’alerte et, plus largement, pour la promotion de la bonne gouvernance dans les secteurs public et privé. L’application de cette législation a toutefois mis en lumière un certain nombre de défis et de lacunes. En décembre 2025, le Médiateur fédéral a transmis à ce sujet une évaluation aux ministres compétents, comprenant un aperçu des points d’attention ainsi que plusieurs propositions d’adaptation de la législation. Il a également transmis un rapport au président de la Chambre à ce sujet. 

• C'est ainsi que le Médiateur fédéral propose de simplifier et de clarifier la législation

Dans le secteur privé, 16,5 % des signalements introduits auprès du Médiateur fédéral ont été déclarés recevables, contre 11,5 % dans le secteur public fédéral. Cela signifie que la majorité des signalements sont irrecevables et, dans plus de la moitié de ces dossiers, la raison en est que les faits signalés ne se sont pas produits dans un contexte professionnel. Cela témoigne d’un manque de connaissance de la législation relative aux lanceurs d’alerte, qui est particulièrement complexe. 

Par la publication d’un guide des lanceurs d’alerte, l’organisation de webinaires, la mise à disposition d’informations claires et d’outils de signalement orientés utilisateurs sur son site internet, le Médiateur fédéral met déjà tout en œuvre pour informer au mieux les lanceurs d’alerte sur ce qu’ils peuvent signaler et sur la manière de le faire. Par ailleurs, une simplification de la législation ainsi qu’une clarification de certains de ses aspects s’imposent.

• Il demande notamment de clarifier la notion de « fraude sociale »

Dans le secteur privé, en 2025, plus de la moitié des signalements de lanceurs d’alerte concernaient des cas de fraude sociale (347 sur 613 signalements). La majorité de ces signalements ont été déclarés irrecevables. La législation ne définit pas clairement ce que recouvre cette notion, ce qui conduit les différentes autorités compétentes pour traiter ces signalements à interpréter et appliquer cette notion de manière parfois divergente. Afin de garantir la sécurité juridique et de renforcer la protection des personnes qui signalent des infractions en matière de fraude sociale, le Médiateur fédéral estime qu’il est essentiel de clarifier la notion de « fraude sociale » dans la législation relative aux lanceurs d’alerte. 

Die Bürgerbeauftragte des Landes Schleswig-Holstein, Samiah El Samadoni, und die drei Kommunalen Landesverbände Schleswig-Holsteins – der Gemeindetag, der Städteverband und der Landkreistag – haben heute, Dienstag, den 28.04.2026, der Staatskanzlei sowie dem Sozialministerium das Gemeinsame Papier „Für eine moderne, digitale und bürger­freundliche Verwaltung – Vorschläge zur Entbürokratisierung der Sozialämter“ übermittelt.

Die gemeinsame Arbeit an den Vorschlägen war im Jahr 2023 von der Bürgerbeauftragten angestoßen worden. „Die nun unterbreiteten konkreten Vorschläge sollen dazu dienen, eine „Win-Win“- Situation für die Bürgerinnen und Bürger und die Verwaltungen zu schaffen: Beide Seiten können mit deutlich weniger Aufwand gleichermaßen sicherstellen, dass Verfahren beschleunigt und die Behörden entlastet werden und die Menschen zügiger Leistungen erhalten“, erläutert El Samadoni die Motivation für die Initiative. Der Schwerpunkt lag dabei gleichermaßen auf den von den Kommunalen Landesverbänden eingebrachten Ideen der Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter in den Sozialämtern und auf den Erfahrungen der Bürgerinnen und Bürger in Schleswig-Holstein mit den bürokratischen Anforderungen bei der Antragstellung. „Ich freue mich, dass wir uns in diesem gemeinsamen Papier auf ganz wesentliche Vorschläge zur Entlastung der Sozialämter und der Bürgerinnen und Bürger einigen konnten“, resümiert El Samadoni. Die an der Erarbeitung beteiligten Akteure bauen darauf, dass die Landesregierung die Bemerkungen aufgreift, unterstützt und wo möglich rasch umsetzt, letztlich um die Funktionsfähigkeit der Sozialverwaltung zu bewahren und das Vertrauen der Bürgerinnen und Bürger in den Staat zu stärken. „Auch eine bessere, bürgerfreundliche Digitalisierung ohne viele Schnittstellen oder Medienbrüche befördert dieses Ziel“, betont El Samadoni. Der Schleswig-Holsteinischen Gemeindetag begrüßt das gemeinsame Entbürokratisierungspapier ausdrücklich. „Es setzt an den richtigen Stellen an, um die Sozialverwaltungen spürbar zu entlasten und gleichzeitig Verfahren für die Bürgerinnen und Bürger zu beschleunigen“, so Jörg Bülow, Geschäftsführer des Schleswig-Holsteinischen Gemeindetages. „Der Schleswig-Holsteinische Landkreistag sieht in den Vorschlägen einen wichtigen Schritt hin zu einer modernen, digitalen und bürgerfreundlichen Sozialverwaltung. Besonders wichtig ist dabei, Bürokratie abzubauen und die Verfahren verständlicher zu gestalten“, konkretisiert Carsten Schreiber, Geschäftsführer des Schleswig-Holsteinischen Landkreistages. Der Städteverband Schleswig-Holstein verbindet mit dem Papier die Erwartung, dass Landesregierung und Gesetzgeber die Vorschläge nun konstruktiv aufgreifen und gemeinsam mit den kommunalen Praktikern weiterentwickeln. „Es geht darum, die Funktionsfähigkeit der Sozialverwaltung langfristig zu sichern und das Vertrauen in einen leistungsfähigen Staat zu stärken“, bekräftigt abschließend Marc Ziertmann, Geschäftsführer des Städteverbandes Schleswig-Holstein. Neben weiteren Vorschlägen zur Vereinfachung und Vereinheitlichung der Sachbearbeitung und Leistungsgewährung sowie Ideen zum Vorantreiben und Verbessern digitaler Prozesse wird in dem Papier ebenfalls thematisiert, wie verschiedene strukturelle Veränderungen zu mehr Entlastung der Sozialbehörden führen können. So sollten künftig nicht parallel mehrere Sozialleistungen beantragt werden, die anschließend ohnehin auf die Sozialhilfe angerechnet werden. Das überreichte Forderungspapier ist neben den laufenden Ausarbeitungen der Sozialstaatskommission des Bundes eine weitere Unterstützung, um dem bedeutenden Thema der Entbürokratisierung weitere Schubkraft zu geben. Die Bürgerbeauftragte und die Kommunalen Landesverbände freuen sich über künftige Gespräche mit den zuständigen Verantwortlichen auf Landes- und Bundesebene.

While 15 months have elapsed since the completion of the Ombudsman's own initiative inquiry into acts and omissions of senior and top-level officials of the Coast Guard regarding the multi-fatal shipwreck of the fishing vessel Adriana off the coast of Pylos on 14/6/2023, the prescribed disciplinary procedures have yet to be initiated. During this period, two successive heads of the Hellenic Coast Guard have been discharged from their duties due to retirement.

The Ombudsman, Mr. Andreas Pottakis, had publicly stated last November that the Administration's obstructionism "contributes little to boosting the morale of the cadres of the Hellenic Coast Guard, the men and women who perform their duty honorably and scrupulously. Just as it does little to protect the prestige of the Force and its international reputation".

ommisisoner's introductory remarks at the exchange of views with the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers

Merci Madame la Présidente,
dear Ambassadors,

Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity to be with you this afternoon to present my annual report for 2025. I hope you've all had a chance to review it, and I will not go through it in great detail now, I would rather just point to a few issues.

The report itself is clustered by priorities, and I'll go through a few aspects of each of these, but just before that a word on the toolbox.

I've been able to make a full use of my toolbox over the course of the reporting year and subsequently. That means extensive missions, visits to the Member States, either in the formal framework of a country visit or for some other reason. This has been a large part of my work.

I have also had the opportunity, either at the level of the States themselves or otherwise, to engage with States, with the human rights actors of given countries, with civil society and of course, very importantly, with the relevant international organisations. No less important has been my interaction, which I'm seeking to ever deepen, with the breadth of the Council of Europe system. I have increasingly invested in what I can call for want of a better term conference diplomacy, which I see as an important part of my work and I have made an adjustment in the type of written output that you are used to from the Commissioner.

You have seen in the past year a lot from me, of statements, of letters, in the public domain and to a lesser extent, but still very important, third party interventions and rule nine interventions. However you have seen far fewer from me than my predecessors of formal reports of a classic kind. That is because frankly with no disrespect I am not a research institute and I am not sure that producing such reports is the way in which I can be of most use to you. Instead I see myself essentially as a diplomatic actor closely embedded in and at the level of the field.

Now turning to the priorities, again and those of you who've listened to me a few times will find it tedious by now, I still have just four priorities and they are the same ones they were the last time I spoke to you, but I would like to give you an update on where I am with each of them.

The first is standing up for the people of Ukraine. This is now and will remain my top priority. I had the chance again during the year to visit Ukraine and I was able during the year, I tried during the year, with others, to maintain attention including through social media, to the ongoing atrocities, the criminal acts of the Russian aggressor.

I think it is important never to let up on shining a light on what the Russian Federation is doing.

In a more thematic way, I continued again, over the year, to pay attention to what we might say is embedding human beings in the path to peace and making sure that human well-being, human rights is ever more visible in the different pathways towards a peaceful end to the aggression.

You already know of my memorandum which I issued already last summer which laid out 10 areas where attention needs to be paid if humans are to be at the heart of peace. I presented the memorandum and engaged in discussions around it in the Rome Recovery Conference of last summer. In autumn I convened a meeting of senior representatives of international organisations expert in conflict and human rights and peace in Warsaw to see how we could further operationalise the 10 attention areas. And if you were to ask me is there any progress here? Well, we know what we know in terms of peace and conflict, but I do see an increasing willingness to nudge open doors around the issue of women in the context of the path to peace, and in particular as framed by UN Security Council Resolution 1325 Women, Peace and Security.

For myself now and into the coming months my focus is just one of my 10 attention areas and that is that of displaced people. I am looking at on the one hand refugees, very much having in mind that the EU Temporary Protection Directive is scheduled to cease to apply as of April next year. And we need to see what will replace that because it is obvious that many people will not have returned by then. We also, no less importantly, need to look at the situation of people displaced within Ukraine itself.

So moving on from my first of my priorities to the second. This is a bit of an amalgam one because this is, you may recall, working with others to embed attention to human rights, human beings, human well-being within the heart of the great issues that confront our societies right now. I have been focussing on four of these great issues.

The first is migration.

It has been a very important area of attention for me throughout the year. In terms of ongoing engagement you will have seen from my outputs and my words I have had to address the issue of pushbacks in a number of our member states. I have had to address the issue of the refusal of access to asylum procedures within the territory of the Council of Europe. I have had to address the persistent issue of a failure to deliver state accountability for criminal acts of state officials within the migration context.

And my particular focus, as some of you will be aware, beyond what I have just said, is on the phenomenon of externalisation. The contracting out in various formats to other states of our own state responsibility in terms of the management of migration.

This is always timely but, of course, takes on a particular resonance in the context of the growing policy direction towards externalisation on this continent.

I focused on three contexts:

• The first is the externalisation of asylum procedures.
• Second the externalisation of return procedures.
• Third the externalisation of border management.

Two general observations.

These are sometimes as you well know described as innovative solutions it is important to recall there is nothing innovative here. Everything that we are trying in Europe has been tried somewhere else and everywhere else it has been tried it has been seen as very problematic.

The second general observation is that these innovative or new approaches are from a human rights point of view replete with risk. This requires at a minimum that our member states proceed with three preoccupations.

• The first is in all such venturing forth into these areas they adopt what I describe as a precautionary principle. Aware that things can go wrong ensuring from the outset that they are alert to how to avoid things going wrong.
• Second this requires putting in place in any arrangement with other states human rights preconditions and safeguards.
• Third it means ensuring the effectiveness of such safeguards through putting in place sturdy human rights monitoring systems which in return themselves need a commitment to transparency and accountability.

To assist the member states as they address these issues going forward, I am now engaged in a new area of work which is the development of guidance for the rollout by states of human rights assessment tools. In other words, tools to help in delivering on those three areas that I mentioned that need attention.

There are two further migration related issues that cause me a considerable degree of concern.

The first has to do with deaths at sea. The IOM told us in recent days that the incidence of death in the Mediterranean already this year is at the highest we have ever seen it in the current context of crisis. This is deplorable since we could deploy the search and rescue capacity overnight if we had the will. People are drowning in part because of inadequate search and rescue.

Second, there is the context right now in the EU setting of the continued negotiation of a new or a recast return regulation. I have issued an observation on this on the 2nd of March. I will not go into it in detail here but as the negotiation heads towards a conclusion it is so important that such principles be protected as individualised asylum assessment, great care ne taken from a human rights point of view in the management of return hubs, there be a return to an earlier draft which allowed that the first option for people to go home is voluntary return. That if they want to go home they can go home in a voluntary way. However, for reasons I don't understand, in later negotiations a forced return is now the default option even if somebody wants to go home which doesn't seem to me to be very convincing.

And then finally there is a presumption of a default option of detention for those subject to return which may not always be necessary and which certainly in the case of children is very problematic as we know from the established practise under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and of UNICEF.

The second great issue has to do with artificial intelligence. There are four contexts for my work and my focus on AI.

• The first is the extraordinary speed of the rollout of new generations of the technology.
• Second there is the coterminous push for deregulation.
• Third closely attached to this, there is the zero-sum presentation of the options of regulation on the one hand and innovation on the other.
• Fourth there is, and this is very welcome, a growing awareness of the inherent risks and dangers of unregulated artificial intelligence.

In these regards, by and large, the models for oversight have not caught up with the technology, on the one hand, and the discourse, on the other. We need a new generation of models for oversight and so I will propose elements for how we can embed human rights in oversight of artificial intelligence in a report in coming months.

Third of my four of the great issues is the environment. This is of course the great existential issue of our moment. There will be no future if we do not get this one right. I have been slow to come to the table because I wanted to make sure what I brought was value-added and I am pleased to let you know that I and my team are now fully invested in supporting a human rights approach to the climate crisis. I am doing it using a classic model of promoting implementation of judgements of the European Court of Human Rights. There have been over 300 judgements of the Court around issues of the environment and what I am seeking to do is support across the member states implementation by all of us of a common core content from these judgements. This is not implementation of judgements in the classic sense. It is identifying the common key so that we can all be led by the Court towards clarifying within the Council of Europe the meaning of the right to a healthy environment.

Fourth and finally, I am pleased to say I become engaged much more, in a much more consequent way in the past year around issues of inequality. I focus on the issue of child poverty, and I will stay with this topic until the end of my mandate. My focus is on how we can approach child poverty with human rights at the heart of our efforts. I have done two country visits on this theme already and I will issue a report with hopefully useful guidance for states next year.

The third of my four priorities, again familiar to those of you who have been listening to me over the last two years, is seeking out the most abandoned forgotten marginalised people in our societies and standing up for them.

That is why I have invested so much time over the past two years in the situation of Roma and Travellers. I have done five country visits, looking specifically at the issue. I published my book “The Unheard 12 million” and there is a travelling exhibition moving around Europe right now associated with the work. All of it intended to break through the hidden in plain sight experience that Roma live and so that we can move their plight up the policy agendas. I will continue to stay focused on this work at the regional and country levels. as well as, of course, with the relevant bodies here in Strasbourg.

A second of these forgotten people that I finally was able to turn my attention to in recent months is the people in occupied territories. They have been very much on my mind in Ukraine in the temporarily occupied territories, but in addition recently, I have been able to pay attention to the people of  Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia. This focus will continue.

The third and final of these forgotten or overlooked people that I am beginning to work on now is an entirely different group but no less forgotten from a human rights point of view and that is older people in institutional care. This is a neglected group from a human rights point of view. COVID was already five six years ago but it reminded us of how so many people died because of an inadequate attention to their needs. So I intend to put a heavy investment in this group, over the coming year in particular.

The fourth and the final of my priority areas is standing up for human rights defenders in particular and civil society more generally. It is as I have said to you before a surprisingly large part of my work. I was not expecting that not a week would go by without me having to intervene with a government around issues, but that is the simple fact.

Over the last year the concerns have more or less clustered in two areas. The first is freedom of assembly. The freedom, the space to operate, just a space to exist as organisations. We have increasingly suffocating laws in too many places which have the effect of massively limiting the work, are completely impeding the work of civil society organisations. And secondly, we have had a concentration of problems around a meaningful space for the freedom of peaceful protest which again engages issues of freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and so on.

You will see by the way in the fourth of my priorities a very clear link to the very important work that you are doing around democracy.

Dear President, Ambassadors,

There is one priority area that I was not expecting. I did not design it. It was imposed on me and that is to contribute, with many other actors, to a defence of the Convention system.

My views are very well known. I have expressed them here on a number of occasions. I do not intend to rehearse them again today other than just a few very brief recollections.

• The first is that I continue to be of the view that the letter and statement of last year by some member states were unhelpful.
• Secondly, I consider that it was good that the discussion was brought in-house, with the work that the CDDH and yourselves are bringing to a close right now.
• Third, I consider that the elements for the draft declaration are a lot better than some of the language we saw in the earlier documents. Some of the pitfalls have been avoided. I will leave it there.
• Fourth, I accept that the draft language that has been largely finalised is the language that will go to Chișinău, to the summit.

I would just ask that you and the member states would keep in mind four things as you proceed out from Chișinău.

• The first is that you will never cease to demand full respect for the independence of Courts. I pluralise that. It is the Court of Human Rights, but it is also domestic courts when engaging in issues of human rights.
• Secondly that you will never cease to stand up for the universality of human rights, for the equal enjoyment of human rights, regardless of the accident of who you are or where you were born or how you have found yourself in the hands of the state.
• Third, we have to be so careful going forward that we do not instrumentalise the European Convention on Human Rights for some other policy ambition.
• And fourth and finally, across everything we do going forward, please make every effort to anticipate the unintended consequences. There is a risk of consequences in 10, 15, 20 years’ time, maybe when the politics of our continent change, based on actions we take now. We must anticipate and ward off these consequences.

I have taken some time this afternoon, Madam President, but I want to close with a positive note, if I may.

I normally end up getting rather dystopian at the end of these things and I do not want to do that today. I want to reflect briefly on the fact that I have been two years in this job and during those two years I have come to know the Council of Europe. I knew it as an outsider, I have come to know it as an insider.

I think it is important that I end my remarks by saying how deeply impressed I am by the continuing achievements of this organisation. It has built strong foundations and infrastructure for the defence of human rights and we must occasionally recall these.

For sure, it is the Court, it is always the Court, but it is also the other instruments beyond the Convention and their monitoring bodies. It is the impact in countries, in prison cells of the CPT, in women's shelters of GREVIO. I see it in my work every time I visit a country.

It is in the treaty generating capacity of the organisation. This organisation is deservedly known as the global human rights treaty laboratory, and as such, it serves such an important role. Look at the AI Framework Convention, look at the Convention on the Safety of Lawyers, globally groundbreaking. My only concern here would be that we write great treaties but we maybe should work far harder to promote them.

Look at the output of numerous bodies such as the Venice Commission. Look at the impact of the Venice Commission for the oversight of the policing of rule of law on this continent. It is an under-acknowledged achievement.

There is the very diverse work of the Secretariat, which again I have had a pleasure to get to know in the past two years. The imaginative, creative, groundbreaking work on AI. The HUDERIA assessment tool developed by the Secretariat of this organisation is a global leader.

Look at the work on Roma. The vast aquis of input to stay standing up in defence of Roma culture and Roma history is in large part a story of the Roma work of the Secretariat at the Council of Europe.

And there is so much more I will not list now. I have not listed any of the great work of my team but they will understand that it would be a bit odd for me to start listing their achievement in this setting, but I want to acknowledge it nevertheless.

In closing, President, Ambassadors, I agree that there is no room for complacency. It is the most challenging time one could imagine, but as we face into the hard winds of the period, let us do so with a deep appreciation of how well this organisation delivers already on its core business. This is a basis for legitimate pride and for self-assurance as we go forward.

Thank you.

• Download the speech - CommHR(2026)37